On the defensive about the value of its pricey cholesterol medicine, Amgen (AMGN) released a new study that argues its treatment is cost effective at about $9,700 a year, which is closely in line with the existing price tag — after discounts and rebates are subtracted from the $14,000 list price.
This contrasts, however, with the $4,200 price point that a group of academics suggested in their own analysis, which was released earlier this week. In their view, the drug — an injectable medicine known as Repatha — should be marked down by roughly two-thirds off the list price to be seen as a good value. Their analysis was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The dueling estimates reflect ongoing controversy over new cholesterol drug called PCKS9 inhibitors. The Amgen drug and one other — which is marketed by Sanofi (SNY) and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (REGN)— were approved two years ago to treat patients who struggle to control their cholesterol with statins, but the high list prices and an initial lack of data on cardiovascular outcomes have made them a hard sell.
About the Author Reprints
(Note: I do not have access to the full article; this point may have been addressed. Regardless, the opening to this piece is misleading.)
The first paragraphs of this article indicate a wider discrepancy between price points for “good value” between the two analyses than the models actually found. The Amgen article uses a $150,000 benchmark for cost-effectiveness, while the Kazi article refers to a $100,000 QALY gained threshhold. At a willingness-to-pay of $150,000 to mirror the Amgen results, Kazi’s model returns a ~$6K price point in the indication of HF and ~$7K for atherosclerotic disease. Granted, these are lower than the $9,699 price point found in the Amgen model, but they are a good deal higher than the $4,500 price you cite when you compare the price for value as defined by disparate threshholds.
Hi Kate,
Thanks for the note. While I did not delve into the differing QALY specifics, I did include this line further down the piece:
“Both of the latest analyses used slightly different benchmarks for determining cost effectiveness.”
I understand your point, however, that the differing benchmarks can lead to different price ranges and should have noted that more explicitly.
While I’m here – what do you think of the differing assessments?
Regards,
ed at pharmalot